Homework about uncertainty principle

In summary, the author is trying to find the minimum radius for balls bearings that will not spread on the floor. He starts with the de Broglie wave and uses the equation for wave magnitude to remove the negative sign. He then calculates the absolute value of the wave equation and uses that to find the minimum radius.
  • #1
athrun200
277
0

Homework Statement


I don't know how to do 13.10 and 13.11

[PLAIN]http://a367.yahoofs.com/hkblog/LR5wVsiTBB9XH4KDYpBfXDI-_9/blog/20110511014559607.jpg?ib_____DMAbgW2U6




The Attempt at a Solution


I just can't get the answer.
Can you show me the details of the proof and the steps to the answers?

[PLAIN]http://a367.yahoofs.com/hkblog/LR5wVsiTBB9XH4KDYpBfXDI-_9/blog/20110511014542175.jpg?ib_____D8.dLXMZo
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
What method are you using to find the uncertainty? Are you using
[tex]\Delta[/tex]x=SQRT(<x^2>-<x>^2) ?
 
  • #3
Disconnected said:
What method are you using to find the uncertainty? Are you using
[tex]\Delta[/tex]x=SQRT(<x^2>-<x>^2) ?

I am using([tex]\Delta[/tex]p)([tex]\Delta[/tex]x)[tex]\geq[/tex]reduced Planck constant/2

Can it find the answer?
 
  • #4
athrun200 said:
I am using([tex]\Delta[/tex]p)([tex]\Delta[/tex]x)[tex]\geq[/tex]reduced Planck constant/2

Can it find the answer?

Well if you are just using the x-p version of the uncertainty relation and not deducing the uncertainty from operators, just sub in!

What is the de broglie relation?

Do you know how to find the error in Y given the error in Z if Y=a/Z, for some constant a?
 
  • #5
I know what is de broglie relation.
Can I use the relation like this?
But it seems it is wrong to convert dp to[tex]\Delta[/tex]p

But I have forgotten how to derive the HUP by using operators.
Can you show me how?
 

Attachments

  • 未命名 -3.jpg
    未命名 -3.jpg
    27.8 KB · Views: 697
  • #6
Well, by operators You simply use the equation I used above for both the x operator and the p operator, then you find their product (and remember that <O>=int(psi*Opsi) ). However, I have no idea what the wavelength operator is. Sorry.

As for the way that uncertainties are added, I'm under the impression that it is by sumsquare, but if there is only one variable...

[tex]\frac{\Delta\lambda}{\lambda}=\frac{\Delta{p}}{p}[\tex]

Subbing in for p=h/lambda gives

[tex]\frac{\Delta\lambda}{\Delta{p})=\frac{\lambda^2}{h}[\tex]

Now if you multiply both sides of the HUP by the relevant side of the above, the h's cancel and it gives

[tex]\Delta\lambda\Delta{x}=\frac{\lambda^2}{4\pi}[\tex]

Which, uh... is out by a factor of 2... So I screwed up somewhere or something?...
Can someone catch my slack here?Edit to add: my tex didn't work. I am actually going to cry soon.
 
  • #7
On Q13.10 I get it a factor of 2 differently to the book as well. Maybe the book assumes:
[tex] \Delta x \Delta p > \hbar [/tex]
While we assumed:
[tex] \Delta x \Delta p > \frac{\hbar}{2} [/tex]
This would mean we get a factor of 2 different to the book.

I think its true you should use:
[tex] \lambda = \frac{h}{p} [/tex]
And then that means:
[tex] \frac{\Delta \lambda}{\lambda} = \frac{\Delta p}{p} [/tex]
And now you just use these equations with:
[tex] \Delta x \Delta p > \frac{\hbar}{2} [/tex]
to get the Heisenberg uncertainty relation in terms of [itex]\lambda[/itex] (by rearranging).
For parts a,b and c, just use the equation they've given you.

For Q13.11, its a bit vague. I think it means you should use
[tex] \Delta x \Delta p = \frac{\hbar}{2} [/tex]
and assume that a good estimate is given when they are equal, so that:
[tex] \Delta x = \Delta p = \sqrt{ \frac{\hbar}{2} } [/tex]
(for the initial horizontal momentum and position, and assume no vertical momentum initially).
Using classic equation for uniform horizontal motion:
[tex] horizontal position = \Delta x + \frac{\Delta p}{m} t [/tex]
At some time t after he dropped it. Then you use the classic expression for vertical distance at a particular time (a is acceleration due to gravity):
[tex] vertical distance = \frac{1}{2} a t^2 [/tex]
and using H as the vertical distance gives the time at which the ball bearing hits the ground. So using this value of t gives the radius of the circle on the floor. Then multiply by 2 to get the diameter:
[tex] diameter = 2 \Delta x + \frac{2 \Delta p}{m} \sqrt{ \frac{2H}{a} } [/tex]
And now just use the approximate values for [itex] \Delta p [/itex] and [itex] \Delta x [/itex]

Alternatively, you could calculate the best possible values of [itex] \Delta p [/itex] and [itex] \Delta x [/itex] to minimise the spread of ball bearings on the floor, but in the question it seems to imply that the guy dropping them doesn't choose the particular values.
 
  • #8
athrun200 said:
I know what is de broglie relation.
Can I use the relation like this?
But it seems it is wrong to convert dp to[tex]\Delta[/tex]p

But I have forgotten how to derive the HUP by using operators.
Can you show me how?

Hi, athrun, I'm trying to help:

1)i think your start is correct from deBroglie wave, you can take magnitude so negative sign will be gone (check Krane Modern Physics). if you start from p . x > h-bar (no divide by 2) and continue your calculation, it will proof it. But for the calculation, i think the author using h-bar / 2, if you want to get the same result.

2) you can start for (delta p) . (delta x) = h-bar / 2 (u can equal it for the minimum uncertainty), with (delta x) for uncertainty in ball's radius(delta r).
substitute for (delta x) = (delta D)/ 2 and (delta p) = m . (delta v) = m . (delta x)/ (delta t) = m . (delta D)/ 2 (delta t). with D = diameter.
you can simplify the equation to be (delta D)^2 = (2 . h-bar / m ) . delta t, and with (delta t) = sqrt(2 H / g).
Well, it slight different with your book about h there, but if you input it, u will get the same result as the key.

sorry if I'm using word for the equation (i don't know using tex in this forum)...
 
  • #9
lepton5 said:
sorry if I'm using word for the equation (i don't know using tex in this forum)...
This thread explains all you need to know about using latex:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=386951"
basically, you put (tex) x^2+4 (/tex) but use square brackets [ instead, so it comes out like this [tex] x^2+4 [/tex]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #10
I found somethings interesting.
It seems we can obtain the expression of error from differentiation.

But the question comes. What is the relation between differentiation and error?
It seems they are total different things. So why I can obtain error from differentiation?(see my attachment below.)

Are there any proof?
 

Attachments

  • 未命名 -1.jpg
    未命名 -1.jpg
    22.4 KB · Views: 667
  • #11
athrun200 said:
I found somethings interesting.
It seems we can obtain the expression of error from differentiation.

But the question comes. What is the relation between differentiation and error?
It seems they are total different things. So why I can obtain error from differentiation?(see my attachment below.)

Are there any proof?

Well, you can calculate error (eg: error propagation, relative error) from calculus differential (there is a very close relation between them).
In many types of application, you can used approximation for [tex]\Delta y \simeq dy[/tex].

I think in your attachment, you want to calculate relative error from the function y = f(x).
You should consult from your calculus book, there is detail discussion about error and differentiation.
If you get still want to know more, i guess you should post it in calculus thread.
 
Last edited:

FAQ: Homework about uncertainty principle

What is the uncertainty principle?

The uncertainty principle, also known as Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, is a fundamental concept in quantum mechanics that states that the more precisely the position of a particle is known, the less precisely its momentum can be known, and vice versa.

Why is the uncertainty principle important?

The uncertainty principle is important because it sets a fundamental limit on the accuracy of measurements in the microscopic world. It also plays a crucial role in understanding the behavior of particles and systems at the quantum level.

How does the uncertainty principle impact our daily lives?

The uncertainty principle has a negligible effect on our daily lives, as its effects are only noticeable at the microscopic level. However, it has led to the development of technologies such as MRI machines and electron microscopes, which rely on its principles.

Can the uncertainty principle be proven?

The uncertainty principle has been extensively tested and has been found to be an inherent feature of the quantum world. However, it cannot be proven in the traditional sense, as it is a fundamental principle of the universe.

How does the uncertainty principle relate to other principles in physics?

The uncertainty principle is closely related to other principles in physics, such as the wave-particle duality and the principle of complementarity. These principles all describe the behavior of particles at the quantum level and are essential in understanding the nature of the universe.

Similar threads

Replies
14
Views
4K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
3K
Back
Top